Internet Censorship in China, South Africa and the West Internet censorship in China, South Africa and other countries is something that prohibits real discussion from taking place regarding issues that affect the public. For instance, in China, certain key word searches are automatically filtered out so that users cannot find the information they are seeking. While Internet censorship may be good from one perspective (in terms of stemming the flow of child pornography, curbing false information, or putting a nation's interests first), it can be viewed as bad from another perspective (in terms of cutting down on the opportunity to inform sides of a dialogue, promoting free exchange of ideas, or discussing why one form of pornography is allowed but not another). This paper will show why Internet censorship can be interpreted in both positive and negative ways depending on the perspective that one adopts (whether one is pro-Statist or anti-Statist). In short, pros and cons depend wholly upon one's worldview and outlook.

The first positive reason for censorship, as Lorentzen (2014) notes, is that "a partial censorship strategy" is an effective way for governments to control the levels of discontent in their respective countries (p. 405). Lorentzen (2014) observes that this is a model that could be applied in China as it attempts to control its Internet content, though he argues that all nations could utilize it, "permitting half of the discontent to be reported when discontent is high and all of the discontent to be reported when discontent is low" (p. 405). However, Lorentzen's main focus is on the utilitarian aspect of censorship and not on the Platonic aspect, which is the need for civilizations to respect the truth: authority without truth is bad for society, according to the philosopher. Modern philosophies take a more subjective view of truth and thus implement utilitarian strategies, such as Lorentzen's in order to control or limit the flow of information, which can be good if it is geared towards supporting truth and bad if it is geared only towards supporting the State's control without respect to truth. Thus, this perspective is a pro-Statist perspective, which is why it supports Internet censorship over freedom of speech.

Following this idea, the notion that States have a duty to monitor the exchange of ideas, as a principal or authority of the realm, gives a second positive reason for censorship. A pro-perspective of Internet censorship therefore would be that the State is protecting itself against discontent and rebellions. This is good from a utilitarian perspective only because it locates the common good in the perseverance of the State. In places like China where the country is "the largest Internet user of the world," controlling that Internet information flow can be very important for the State to maintain its authority (Liang, Lu, 2010, p. 103). Monitoring the flow of information is viewed, from this point-of-view as a necessary good for the health of the State. Again, one's perspective must be pro-Statist. It is also an "expression of power" that gives the State an important character that likens it to the parental unit who looks out for the well-being of the communities within it (Carr, 2013, p. 621).

Furthermore, as Guo and Feng observe (2011), one needs to "understand support for Internet censorship" in the context of "the theory of reasoned action" which provides a rational basis for Internet censorship in terms of promoting the ideals and agenda of the State policies, regardless of what some analysts, like Drewett and Cloonan argue (p. 33). Thus, this perspective asserts that Internet censorship is good not only for controlling discontent, and monitoring the flow of ideas, but also for promoting ideals that the State wants to promote -- such as respect for every community. By placing the priorities of the State above the discourse of socio-politics, Internet censorship in all places, whether China, South Africa or in the West, takes on the pragmatic dimension of simply being a practical and honest way to enforce traditions and beliefs. In this way Internet censorship can be viewed as positive or a pro-because it stems the tide of non-traditional or "false" information and promotes that which the State deems good for society. This perspective may be used in the "crackdown" of Shi Tao, who was arrested for "sending an email to a New York-based Web site" which "included the text of a government warning that the return of a handful of dissidents who had witnessed the Tiananmen...

111). Tao thought Western media would like to know this as an example of how controlling China is regarding its past and interpretations of events, but from the standpoint of State utilitarianism (a more positive term than authoritarianism or totalitarianism) this form of censorship is understandable and can be viewed in a positive light: China wants to protect its image just like a corporate brand would want to protect its image, and it wants to promote an ideal projection of itself that its citizens can rally behind and support: it views looking forward rather than backward as a positive in and of itself. The same can be said in South Africa, where Internet laws are beginning to crack down on "hate speech" in order to keep communities from being offended (Drewett, Cloonan, 2006, p. 68).
On the other hand, these same points may be viewed from an anti-Statist perspective that allows one to see Internet censorship as a negative. For example, one can see that even in developed nations in the West, the issue of Internet censorship is clouded by this sense of pragmatism. On the one hand, the West promotes freedom of speech as an ideal; on the other hand, the West is compelled in the post-9/11 world to exercise more control over the Internet in order to maintain social order. However, other reasons for cracking down contribute as well -- such as a moral or social order that the government wants to promote. In Canada, for instance, censorship laws allow most forms of pornography to be consumed by the public, but child pornography is outlawed. This form of Internet censorship bars the question from being raised, why is some pornography good and other kinds bad? This is one con against Internet censorship as it suppresses dialogue. While pornography (and that term must be used loosely because no one can agree upon what it constitutes) is readily available in the markets of Canada, the U.K. and the U.S. -- and even more readily available on the Internet -- the only real form of pornography that is criminalized is child pornography, which has more to do with child abuse than it does with sexually explicit material. Canadian law in the 21st century so far has primarily concerned itself with child pornography, with Bill C-15A, Bill C-20, Bill C-12, and Bill C-2 (Casavant, Robertson, 2007). In the U.S. pornography laws are, as in Canada, limited to the possession of child pornography. While it is perfectly legal to possess other "obscene" materials, the possession of child pornography is deemed a serious offense and the same stands true in the U.K. This is not surprising since globalization has essentially produced a one world government wherein the same laws are enacted everywhere the major powers work together: which means the same arguments are ignored, and the same issues skirted. For this reason, no real debate concerning the nature and efficacy of pornography has been allowed to take place. Thus, this perspective would be an anti-Statist view that sees Internet censorship as a hindrance to dialogue.

Indeed, from an anti-Statist perspective, a second negative reason for censorship may be found in the way that South Africa is deciding to censor the Internet, banning popular music that fosters hate speech (Drewett, Cloonan, 2006, p. 68). As Drewett and Cloonan (2006) note, "even a fragile democracy should not compromise freedom for the sake of political expediency and short-term advantages" (p. 68). The reason they cite is that this brings about a "counterproductive" method of balancing freedom of speech with the need to discourage hate speech. Internet censorship in South Africa has not done anything to stem the motive behind hateful speech; on the contrary, it has only drawn more attention to it. Thus, by highlighting the problem and making a law that bans it, it puts that issue in context that leads to more antagonism. This is most certainly a con against Internet censorship, especially considering that South Africa "has the highest level of media freedom in Africa" (Bitso, Constance, 2014, p. 41). Its current "formulation of legislation that might impact" in negative terms this free flow of information over the Internet could jeopardize its position in that regard. From the standpoint of freedom of speech, a crackdown in Internet policy would cause South Africa to be a State where there is far more limited freedom of expression, similar to China. In the West, of course, freedom of expression is mainly controlled in a social aspect (with hate speech laws…